United States v. Kevin Brown

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4296

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

KEVIN EUGENE BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00423-CCE-1)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lynne Louise Reid, L.L. REID LAW, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Kevin Eugene Brown appeals his conviction and 96-month

sentence after pleading guilty to distribution of cocaine base,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012).

Brown’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Brown’s

sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Brown

has filed a pro se brief challenging his designation as a career

offender. We affirm.

We review Brown’s sentence for both procedural and

substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

(2007). We must ensure that the district court committed no

significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the

Guidelines range. Id. at 51. If there is no significant

procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive

reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances,

including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”

Id. We presume that a sentence below a properly calculated

Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756

F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant can rebut this

presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable

when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

2
After reviewing the presentence report and sentencing

transcript, we conclude that Brown’s sentence is both

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court

properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range and

sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence

Brown received. We discern no error in the district court’s

application of the career offender enhancement, as Brown had the

requisite number of prior convictions for controlled substance

offenses. Finally, Brown has not made the showing necessary to

rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his below-

Guidelines sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Brown requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Brown.

3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED